grand action problem

[Richard Brekne]

Lets requalifiy things here.... both Jons and my own <<advice>> on this 
post were accompanied by cautions stateing the need for more hard 
information on the actions condition. There is no way we can simply 
suggest <<the solution>> to why  7mm of let off is as close as the 
fellow can get. Ergo we simply offered food for thought, and suggested 
things to look for, along with a call for a more thorough description of 
the actions condition.

Raising the stack, the hammer rail, sanding or changing to shorter 
regulating buttons, can all be appropriate, or <<disastrours>> depending 
on the real situation. I wouldnt go raising the stack based on just the 
<string height minus hammer bore> factor any more then I would without 
further ado start altering the length of the letoff buttons.  Like I 
said in my first post.... 7 mm is a mile away from the strings... well 
half of checking distance.  Something is very wrong with an action that 
cant get letoff closer to this, and the appropriate course to take is to 
ascertain what the heck the problem is first... yes ?

Knowing Schimmel pianos as I do, I find the whole problem as described 
quite suspicious to begin with, and I believe I made that point quite 
clear. Schimmel doesnt make junk, and a Schimmel action which displays 
this kind of a problem more then likely is either been tampered with, or 
has suffered some kind of injury.

So... in lue of any more hard info about this actions condition...

Cheers
RicB

Jon Page wrote:

>>However, Ric is right.  The most obvious fix is to sand the
>back-sides of 
>>the buttons, so that you can adjust them a bit higher.
>
>No, this would be disastrous if you first don't verify the degree of
>after touch now present.
>If there is little or no after touch now, trimming the buttons will
>produce even less a/t;
>raising the stack is an easier solution without further compromising a/t.
>You need to establish
>practical action elevations for the ratio parameters to work assuming the
>elevations are improper,
>this is part if the info we are lacking and can only speculate.
>
>It is very difficult to speculate without more info or actually
>physically seeing the action.
>David I. touched on a good speculation... are the drop screws set too low
>restricting the
>upwards motion of the repetition lever. Or to use the drop screw as a
>stack height indicator:
>If the drop screws are set as high as possible and the hammer still
>doesn't rise enough; then
>that would indicate too short of hammer bore and/or improper stack
>height.
>
>A few years ago I regulated a Schimmel and I think I did have to raise
>the stack to coerce the
>action into proper function. If <string height minus hammer bore>
>is not close to hammer center
>height then the stack height should be addressed.
>
>As far as the spread goes, lacking the factory spec; set the jack to be
>90 degrees to the
>shank at rest (aligned on the knuckle core with proper hammer blow
>distance).
>
>
> Regards, Jon Page, piano technician Harwich Port, Cape Cod, Mass. 
> mailto:jonpage@comcast.net 
> <mailto:jonpage@comcast.net>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>